When the French artist and music journalist Joachim Roncin first posted an image with the words “Je Suis Charlie” to his Twitter feed, he was not, presumably, thinking about intellectual property law.

Roncin created the now-iconic white-and-gray text roughly an hour after last week’s attack on the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which occurred just five minutes from Roncin’s home in Paris. In the wake of the shooting, Roncin instinctively combined Charlie Hebdo’s logo and typographic design with a concept Roncin associated with the book series Où est Charlie? (Where’s Charlie?, published in the U.S. as Where’s Waldo?), which Roncin read frequently with his children. The image was intended not as a public symbol, but rather a personal expression of Roncin’s fear and sense of being “personally targeted” by the attacks.

Yet Roncin’s image didn’t remain his for long. It quickly became an international rallying cry for free speech, and a symbol of resistance to terror and solidarity with its victims. It also prompted a cascade of legal claims from companies and individuals seeking to trademark the image.

Attempts to monetize the slogan have been rapacious from the start: Cybersquatters were reportedly battling to register the domain names jesuischarlie.fr, jesuischarlie.com, and jesuischarlie.org within hours of the attack on the publication. As of Thursday, France’s Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (INPI) had reportedly turned down over 120 trademark applications, at least two of which sought to use the phrase to sell weapons, according to AFP. Outside of France, trademark applications have also been filed by individuals ranging from an Australian fashion designer with an “esoteric perspective” to a Belgian businessman whose application would cover “laundry and cleaning products, printed matter, clothing, footwear, toys, decorations for Christmas trees, fruit juices and beer” in Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.

These attempts to trademark the tragedy, and its most resonant refrain, have disturbed Roncin, who announced plans on Thursday to seek copyright protection for the slogan. The application is being filed in order “to try and control the use of the slogan and keep the initial message intact,” according to Roncin’s lawyer. “Frankly, I’m really hurt by everything that has happened with people wanting to make money out of it. Especially because it profoundly devalues the meaning of the slogan,” Roncin told AFP.

Several trademark experts have similarly condemned the attempted commercialization of “Je Suis Charlie,” though they’ve expressed little surprise. Responding to the “overreaching and insensitive trademark applicants” in France, David Taylor, a Paris-based attorney at Hogan Lovells, lamented that “in a capitalist society there appears to be no end to the attempts some people will go to make a quick buck. ... [A]ttempts to trademark such slogans that have been born out of tragedy are becoming all too common.”

Related Story

Trademarking and commercializing tragedy is not exactly a new phenomenon (see the contentious history of claims to “let’s roll,” the last recorded words spoken by Flight 93 passenger Todd Beamer on 9/11). But these practices have been occurring with greater frequency in recent years, according to trademark attorney Sharon Daboul, who noted the trend last year amid Malaysia Airlines’ repeated battles with trademark trolls claiming the names “MH17” and “MH370” in the aftermath of the airline disasters. This, in turn, forces those involved in high-profile tragedies to “think about registering the marks themselves simply in order to get there first and prevent third parties exploiting such incidents for their own benefit,” according to Daboul.

This defensive thinking hasn’t only affected hashtag originators like Roncin; it’s also had an impact on those at the very center of the misfortune. The mother of Trayvon Martin, for one, claims that she decided to trademark phrases related to her deceased son in order to prevent them from bring exploited commercially.

New York-based attorney Robert Ledesma argues that preying on public remembrances is an unintended side effect of social-media trends and hashtag activism, which can rapidly amplify and spread messages and memes, distancing the terms from their original purpose. At the same time, Ledesma points out, social media can act as a deterrent. Because trademark claims are not anonymous, named trademark-vultures can become targets for outrage online: “You may get trolled on social media. You will upset masses of people who feel the phrase is part of something much larger than any single person or entity’s business ambitions. They will be repulsed by your actions.” (In fact, the Belgian businessman who filed one of the most publicized “Je Suis Charlie” applications has since withdrawn his request amid a backlash on social media.)

Moreover, the ubiquity of phrases that are trending on social media weakens the legal case for individual trademark claims. In the case of “Je Suis Charlie,” France’s INPI has already rejected hundreds of trademark claims that fail to meet the “distinctiveness criteria” required for commercial trademarks. After all, how can you stake a claim to “Je Suis Charlie” when millions of others have declared that they, too, are Charlie?

Most Popular

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why did Trump’s choice for national-security advisor perform so well in the war on terror, only to find himself forced out of the Defense Intelligence Agency?

How does a man like retired Lieutenant General Mike Flynn—who spent his life sifting through information and parsing reports, separating rumor and innuendo from actionable intelligence—come to promote conspiracy theories on social media?

Perhaps it’s less Flynn who’s changed than that the circumstances in which he finds himself—thriving in some roles, and flailing in others.

In diagnostic testing, there’s a basic distinction between sensitivity, or the ability to identify positive results, and specificity, the ability to exclude negative ones. A test with high specificity may avoid generating false positives, but at the price of missing many diagnoses. One with high sensitivity may catch those tricky diagnoses, but also generate false positives along the way. Some people seem to sift through information with high sensitivity, but low specificity—spotting connections that others can’t, and perhaps some that aren’t even there.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

Democrats who have struggled for years to sell the public on the Affordable Care Act are now confronting a far more urgent task: mobilizing a political coalition to save it.

Even as the party reels from last month’s election defeat, members of Congress, operatives, and liberal allies have turned to plotting a campaign against repealing the law that, they hope, will rival the Tea Party uprising of 2009 that nearly scuttled its passage in the first place. A group of progressive advocacy groups will announce on Friday a coordinated effort to protect the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and stop Republicans from repealing the law without first identifying a plan to replace it.

They don’t have much time to fight back. Republicans on Capitol Hill plan to set repeal of Obamacare in motion as soon as the new Congress opens in January, and both the House and Senate could vote to wind down the law immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on the 20th.

Trinidad has the highest rate of Islamic State recruitment in the Western hemisphere. How did this happen?

This summer, the so-called Islamic State published issue 15 of its online magazine Dabiq. In what has become a standard feature, it ran an interview with an ISIS foreign fighter. “When I was around twenty years old I would come to accept the religion of truth, Islam,” said Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi, recalling how he had turned away from the Christian faith he was born into.

At-Trinidadi, as his nom de guerre suggests, is from the Caribbean island of Trinidad and Tobago (T&T), a country more readily associated with calypso and carnival than the “caliphate.” Asked if he had a message for “the Muslims of Trinidad,” he condemned his co-religionists at home for remaining in “a place where you have no honor and are forced to live in humiliation, subjugated by the disbelievers.” More chillingly, he urged Muslims in T&T to wage jihad against their fellow citizens: “Terrify the disbelievers in their own homes and make their streets run with their blood.”

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

A new survey suggests many might prefer a kind of multipolar Washington, with three distinct orbits of power checking each other.

Does Donald Trump have a mandate?

Though last month’s election provided Trump and his fellow Republicans unified control of the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate for the first time since 2006, the latest Allstate/Atlantic Media Heartland Monitor Poll shows the country remains closely split on many of the key policy challenges facing the incoming administration—and sharply divided on whether they trust the next president to take the lead in responding to them.

In addition, on several important choices facing the new administration and Congress, the survey found that respondents who voted for Trump supported a position that was rejected by the majority of adults overall. That contrast may simultaneously encourage Trump to press forward on an agenda that energizes his coalition, while emboldening congressional Democrats to resist him.